IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                              C.C.No. 75/2022

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

ORDER DATED:   30-06-2023

BETWEEN

          Ampady K.S.,

S/o Late Sankaran Namboothiri,

60 years, Government Service,

Souparnika Illom,

Clappana P.O., Karunagappally,

Kollam 690525.                                                        :       Complainant

(By Adv.K.Somasekharan Pillai)

AND

1. Supra Hi-Tech Electro Equipments(P),

Ltd., Supra House, Pallissery Road,

Thamanam P.O., Kochi 682032

Rep.by its Managing Director.

(By Adv.S.Sreekumar)

2. Managing Director,

Supra Hi-Tech Electro Equipments(P),

Ltd., Supra House, Pallissery Road,

Thamanam P.O., Kochi 682032

(By Adv.S.Sreekumar)

3. General Manager,

Supra Hi-Tech Electro Equipments(P),

Ltd., Supra House, Pallissery Road,

Thamanam P.O., Kochi 682032

(By Adv.S.Sreekumar):      Opposite Parties

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant, a permanent resident of the above mentioned address, purchased a home inverter with battery. The specific model is GP-812 and the serial number is 17-4-0029. The inverter has a backup and is specified as 800 VA/12V, as indicated in the invoice No.TR00114 dated 19.05.2017. The total price of the purchase was Rs. 21,500/- (Rupees Twenty-one thousand and five hundred only). The complainant relied on the oral assurance provided by the opposite parties that the items came with a five-year replacement warranty. The opposite parties made the complainant believe that the items were of high quality and standard. Further, they assured the complainant that timely and proper sales service would be provided even after the warranty period.

Preface to purchasing the same, the complainant had informed the opposite parties that some extension work was being carried out in his house. The complainant stated that the product would be installed one year after the date of purchase and assured the opposite parties that they would be notified upon completion of the house work for installation. The opposite parties agreed to this arrangement and assured the complainant that the replacement warranty would commence only after the installation.

At the time of purchase, complainant was residing at Ernakulam. The opposite parties delivered the aforementioned goods in a sealed pack and the invoice was placed inside a sealed plain cover within the box. The complainant inquired about the warranty card, and the opposite parties informed him that it was included along with the invoice. In good faith, the complainant believed this statement.

The goods were initially kept at the complainant's residence in Ernakulam. In April 2018, after the completion of the complainant's house, he relocated the goods along with other household articles to his native place as indicated above. Prior to the installation of the items, the complainant contacted the company via phone to request installation. The company informed the complainant that any electrician could perform the installation and that it was unnecessary to send a company technician. The complainant had installed the inverter in May 2018, in his house shown above by an electrician and started residing in the house from that month onwards. Following the installation, the invoice was misplaced within the house of the complainant due to arrangement of articles in the house.

After approximately one year of purchase, in June 2019, the battery of the purchased inverter deeply discharged and became non-functional.  This defect was informed by the complainant to the company official.  The company’s authorized technician Sri.Sinu came to the house of the complainant and inspected the same.  After verifying the complainant's claim, Sri Sinu instructed the complainant to recharge the battery with the assistance of an electrician from the nearest locality to restore its functionality. Thereafter the complainant got it recharged in a shop in a nearby locality by paying Rs.400/-.  However, in April 2020, the same issue recurred and the system ceased to work.

The complainant promptly informed the company and the authorized technician about the recurring issue. The technician, after inspecting the system, advised the complainant to recharge the battery once again. Following the technician's advice, the complainant recharged the battery at the aforementioned shop, paying Rs. 400/-. However, even after the recharge, the system still exhibited the defect of not charging fully, and the charge would diminish rapidly. In August 2020, the battery completely failed and stopped working. The complainant immediately informed the company official, and the authorized technician inspected the item on September 3, 2020. The technician confirmed that the system was not functioning and deemed it unusable. He concluded that the only solution was to install a new battery.

At this point, the complainant reminded the company about the assurance given by company officials regarding the five-year free replacement warranty. The technician recorded the complainant's demand for replacement in the service report dated 03.09.2020. The complainant then contacted the service manager of the company, Sri Rithul Krishna, over the telephone, informing him about the complaint and the demand for replacement. The service manager assured the complainant that the matter would be looked into and resolved promptly.

Despite the complainant's repeated demands, the service manager requested a copy of the concerned invoice as it was not found in the company's records. The complainant located the misplaced invoice and sent it to the service manager. However, upon receiving the copy of the invoice, the service manager took a negative approach. He stated that, according to the invoice, the warranty period was for three years and had already expired, thereby rejecting the possibility of replacement. The complainant explained the sequence of events from the beginning and emphasized that no warranty card had been issued.

Following numerous attempts to resolve the issue, the complainant contacted the service manager multiple times until November 2020. Finally, the service manager promised to discuss the matter and take appropriate action. However, when the complainant reached out to the General Manager, the claim was rejected based on the argument that the three-year warranty period had expired.

Eventually, the service manager proposed that the complainant pay Rs. 9000/- for the installation of a new battery, which the complainant refused to accept. Despite the complainant's persistent efforts to obtain a replacement for the faulty system, all attempts were in vain. The place of the complainant is a rural area and power failure happens frequently. In the circumstances the complainant has purchased the above equipment to overcome the situation. However, due to the illegal and adamant attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant and their family have suffered greatly, enduring heat and the lack of light during nights. As a result, the complainant has experienced mental distress, loss, and hardship caused by the conduct of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant seeks adequate compensation from the opposite parties.

Notice has been issued to the opposite parties and they failed to appear before the Commission hence they were set exparte.  The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has been examined as PW1, marked Exts.P1 and P2.  Ext.P1 is the tax invoice dated 19^th May 2017 for Rs.21,500/-,  Ext.P2 is service reported dated 03.09.2020. The opposite parties failed to cross examine the complainant.

Based on the uncontroverted testimony of the complainant and the supporting documents, Ext.P1 and P2, it is evident that the complainant has presented sufficient evidence to substantiate his case and justify the relief he is seeking. The complainant's purchase of an inverter with a battery from the opposite party was made based on their oral assurance of a five-year replacement warranty. Furthermore, the opposite party represented that the items were of high quality and standard, and assured the complainant of timely and proper after-sales service.

In good faith, the complainant relied on these assurances given by the opposite party. However, when the complainant sought a replacement within the warranty period, they were unjustly denied based on an incorrect interpretation of the invoice. This denial of the warranty, as well as the breach of the promised quality and assurance, constitutes a violation of the consumer's rights.

The evidence provided by the complainant, along with his testimony and supporting documents, clearly establish his claim. It is apparent that the complainant acted in good faith and was unjustly denied the benefits he was promised. Therefore, the complainant has a valid case and is entitled to the relief sought for.

It is crucial to highlight that the opposite parties were set exparte as they failed to file their version within the stipulated time in this case.  The failure of the opposite parties to file their version and the subsequent dismissal of their petition for review support the complainant’s position and reinforce the validity of the claims made against the opposite parties. The opposite parties' lack of response indicates their failure to present any counterarguments or evidence to refute the complainant's claims.

 It is pertinent to note that Ext.P2 which is the service report provided by the opposite parties’ Service Engineer, serves as a crucial piece of evidence in this case.  It unequivocally states that the battery is not functioning and has experienced deep discharge.  Moreover, the Service Engineer himself as per the documents in Ext.P2 has recommended replacement of the battery.  The content of Ext.P2 not only corroborates the complainant's claims but also highlights the expert opinion of the Service Engineer, further supporting the complainant's position. The absence of a response from the opposite parties and the compelling evidence presented by the complainant, Ext.P2 plays a pivotal role in establishing the truth of the matter. Its contents serve as strong evidence supporting the complainant's claims and further validate his position against the opposite parties.

However, the purchased items initially functioned but encountered deep discharge and malfunctioning in June 2019.  The complainant promptly reported these issues to the company’s authorized technician, who advised recharging the battery locally.  Similar incidents occurred in April 2020 and August 2020, resulting in diminished performance.  Finally in January 2021, the inverter itself became non-functional.  These recurring defects and malfunctions clearly indicate poor quality and manufacturing defects in the products supplied by the opposite parties.

Despite the complainant’s rightful demand for a replacement battery within the warranty period, the opposite parties failed to provide timely and proper after-sales service.  The complainant’s repeated efforts to resolve the matter were met with resistance from the service manager and even contacting the General Manager of the company proved to be futile.  The opposite parties’ refusal to honor their commitment demonstrates a deficiency in service and a lack of responsibility towards the consumer’s legitimate expectations.

The complainant, in good faith, relied on the assurances given by the opposite parties regarding the quality, standard, and warranty of the purchased items. However, the opposite parties' failure to address the recurring defects and their reluctance to provide a replacement within the warranty period clearly indicate a breach of trust and a violation of the consumer's rights.

Considering the evidence presented and the lack thereof of the opposite parties, it is evident that the complainant has been subject to inconvenience, mental distress, and financial loss due to the poor quality of the products and the opposite parties' failure to fulfill their obligations. The complainant's demands for proper service and a replacement within the warranty period were reasonable and justified, making the opposite parties liable for their negligence and deficient service.

The frequent breakdowns and malfunctions of the battery, even after following the company's technician's advice to recharge it, strongly indicate a manufacturing defect and poor quality of the product. These recurring issues highlight a clear deficiency in the service provided by the opposite parties. The fact that the battery failed to function properly despite recharging, as recommended by the company's technician, further underscores the substandard quality of the product.

The defects mentioned above are undeniably a result of manufacturing defects and poor product quality. The battery became completely defective within one year and required recharging in the following year, indicating clear signs of inferior quality and a failure to meet the standards and assurances provided by company officials. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to replace the battery within the warranty period upon the complainant's request. However, instead of fulfilling this obligation, the manufacturer instructed the complainant to recharge the battery on two occasions at their own expense. These instances clearly demonstrate a deficiency in service. Moreover, the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices, deceptive trade practices, and other actions for which they are legally liable. Hence, this complaint to address these issues and seek appropriate remedies.

The complainant, as a consumer, had legitimate expectations of a reliable and durable product that would function as intended. However, the opposite parties failed to meet these expectations and provide a satisfactory solution to the recurring problems. This deficiency in service is evident in the complainant's repeated attempts to resolve the issues, which were met with resistance and an unwillingness to fulfill their obligations.

The complainant's experience of frequent breakdowns and malfunctions, coupled with the opposite parties' inadequate response, solidifies the claim that the product suffered from a manufacturing defect and poor quality. The opposite parties have failed to provide the expected level of service and have not taken sufficient responsibility to rectify the situation.

The opposite parties resorted to unfair trade practices by deliberately misrepresenting the warranty terms and subsequently refusing to fulfill the promised replacement warranty. This deceptive conduct not only constitutes a violation of the complainant's consumer rights but also inflicts significant mental distress and financial loss upon them.

By providing oral assurances of a five-year replacement warranty and assuring the complainant of high-quality products, the opposite parties created a false expectation and induced the complainant to make the purchase. However, their subsequent refusal to honor the warranty and their misrepresentation of the warranty terms amount to unfair trade practices.

As a result of the opposite parties' actions, the complainant has suffered mental distress and financial loss. The constant breakdowns, malfunctions, and the subsequent denial of warranty claims have not only caused inconvenience but also led to additional expenses for repairs and replacements. Moreover, the complainant has been subjected to the frustration and emotional burden of dealing with an unresponsive company and a lack of resolution to their legitimate concerns.

The unfair trade practices employed by the opposite parties not only undermine consumer trust but also have tangible negative consequences for individuals like the complainant. Such conduct deserves condemnation and the complainant is entitled to seek appropriate compensation for the mental distress and financial hardships endured as a direct result of the opposite parties' actions.

The opposite parties have a responsibility to ensure that the items remain in optimal working condition throughout the warranty period, as guaranteed by them at the time of the complainant's inverter purchase. However, this complaint's cause of action is ongoing due to persistent issues with the product and the opposite parties' refusal to provide a replacement or suitable resolution over an extended period. Therefore, any limitation period is not be applicable in this case, as the cause of action continues to inflict harm and necessitates remedy.

It is very pertinent to note that the complainant, residing in a rural area with frequent power failures, specifically purchased the goods to mitigate the challenges posed by such outages. Regrettably, the unlawful conduct of the opposite parties has subjected the complainant and their family to significant difficulties, mental distress, and financial losses. This situation deserves careful consideration, particularly in light of the adverse consequences suffered by the complainant.

It is worth noting that the opposite parties bear the responsibility of ensuring that the equipment remains in perfect working condition, especially during the warranty period guaranteed by them at the time of the complainant's inverter purchase.

As the cause of action for this complaint is ongoing, with the issues persisting and the opposite parties continuing to deny the complainant's rightful resolution, any limitation period should not apply in this case. The harm caused by the opposite parties' actions remains active and requires proper redress. Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge that the complainant's claim for compensation and resolution should not be constrained by any time limitations, as the harm caused by the opposite parties' conduct continues to persist.

The frequent breakdowns of the battery, exacerbated by the opposite parties' refusal to provide a replacement or an appropriate resolution, have resulted in the unavailability of electricity during power outages. This absence of essential power supply has caused discomfort, inconvenience, and potential health risks to the complainant and their family. It is worth noting that the opposite parties bear the responsibility of ensuring that the equipment remains in perfect working condition, especially during the warranty period guaranteed by them at the time of the complainant's inverter purchase.

After evaluating all the available materials on record, it is evident that the opposite parties have failed to fulfill their obligation that was in place at the time of the inverter purchase. This nonfulfillment of their obligation constitutes a deficiency in service, thus validating the merit of the complaint. Therefore, based on the presented evidence, it can be concluded that the complainant has successfully established his case and is entitled to the relief sought.

Based on the evidence presented, it can be concluded that the complainant has effectively substantiated his case. He has provided evidence of unlawful conduct, breach of warranty, poor product quality, and the resulting harm and losses he has endured. Consequently, the complainant is justified in seeking the relief sought. It is crucial to address the grievances raised by the complainant and ensure he receives appropriate remedies and compensation that he rightfully deserve. The opposite parties should be held accountable for their actions and the harm inflicted upon the complainant. The evidence presented strongly supports the complainant's claims, making it both just and fair to grant him the relief he is seeking.

In the result we are of the view the complaint is only to be allowed in the interest of justice.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to realize Rs.21,500/- together with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation for Rs.10,000/- for the losses suffered and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.  These amounts should be calculated from the date of the complaint until they are fully realized by the complainant

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-

1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.21,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization.

2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Forwarded/by Order                                                                                                           

            Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1       : Ampady K.S.

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1    : tax invoice dated 19^th May 2017 for Rs.21,500/-

Ext.P2    : service reported dated 03.09.2020

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil